Talk:MLS Cup 2000

MLS Cup 2000 has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 10, 2024. (Reviewed version).

A fact from MLS Cup 2000 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 April 2021, and was viewed approximately 1,352 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that MLS Cup 2000 was the first championship game in league history not to feature D.C. United?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/MLS Cup 2000.

Wikipedia

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Football: American & Canadian / Season Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

Kansas City Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about Kansas City, Missouri, and the surrounding metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Kansas CityWikipedia:WikiProject Kansas CityTemplate:WikiProject Kansas CityKansas City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:MLS Cup 2000.gif[edit]

Image:MLS Cup 2000.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resources[edit]

Venue: Tampa's losing bid
Previews: NY Times, Chicago Tribune (p. 10), Kansas City (earlier)
Halftime show: NY Times (2007)
Recaps: Washington Post (Molnar), Chicago Tribune (p. 1), Kansas City, USA Today (Meola)
- Sports Illustrated: Recap
Retrospective: SportingKC (oral history with players and coach)
MLSnet Archive: Summary
MLS Cup Moments: Meola, Miklos Molnar, Doorstep

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the finalists of MLS Cup 2000 earned the same number of points during the regular season? Source: Chicago Tribune
- ALT1:... that MLS Cup 2000 was the first championship game in league history to not feature D.C. United? Source: San Diego Union-Tribune

Reviewed: WGRI

5x expanded by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 06:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

The article underwent a massive expansion prior to its nomination, its certainly long enough and well-written. No red flags come up with the Earwig tool. Both hooks provided are interesting and referenced here and within the article, though I think ALT1 might have a slight edge in being more appealing to a general audience. This looks good to go. AGF tick since ALT1 is referenced with an offline newspaper source. Nice work, ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️ 01:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:MLS Cup 2000/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ReedyTurnip (talk · contribs) 15:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Starting this review, article seems pretty good.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
I believe the word "the" is needed in the first sentence, should be "the top-level soccer league"
Fixed.

I don't think it is necessary to mention that RFK stadium is where DC United won a championship in the venue section, it hinders the readability of the sentence.
It is necessary, so I've split up the sentence.

Venue section second paragraph first second can be moved to after the next sentence, so that the section flows better.
Moved up.

"After a 2–0 defeat of Los Angeles and a scoreless draw" it would be less ambiguous to say Galaxy, especially they are referred to as simply Galaxy later in the article.
Fixed.

"the Wizards where shutout in three consecutive losses before closing out July with a 3–1 victory against the Columbus Crew." were shut out, also more straightforward to say "ending July" rather than closing out
"Shutout" is a single word in American sports.

Stoichkov is spelled differently in different parts, stick to one spelling
Fixed.

Meets criteria for the most part, just minor fixes to be made.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Lead section could be a little longer, but overall article definitely passes.
Added another paragraph.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
follows guidelines

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
The citations seem good and everything that needs an inline citation has one

C. it contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
covers background and the match itself, significantly broad

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
good pictures of players and the match
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Will pass one the grammatical issues are resolved
@ReedyTurnip: Thanks for the review. I have addressed all of your comments. Sounder Bruce 19:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems all good, nice work on this, congratulations on the good article. ReedyTurnip (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]